Jdb case

[Glenn012]

I might get crucified here myself.. I am a female & I believe he is innocent until proven guilty, I don’t think we have the right to assume that he is guilty, at least no more than assuming the woman involved made up the accusation. I have not met 1 woman in my 47 years that has been assaulted or raped, I have 2 adult daughters who know that some situations can be avoided, I drilled this into their heads. Never get a cab on your own, don’t leave with strangers you just met, I was always available to get them if stuck.
The thing is Damo we don’t know what happened, you believing him to be guilty is no different to someone believing she made it up. Just my opinion, sorry if I offended anyone

I think you are right. That was Jacks feelings as well in regard to Beattie. probably Greenberg as well though not sure. He seems to be more cautious in his public statements. he is very ambitious and mindful of the prevailing political winds. I could be wrong but I think those that are calling for the suspension to be upheld are just bitter about something but lack the courage to come out and say what they really think.

 

[Glenn012]

As much as I value having jack in the team I think it’s best and this goes for widdop too just leave the side as is barring injuries let them gel and work on their combinations and settle their confidence is getting back to the right levels and I think we can do some damage and knowing mcClusterphuck he’ll screw with the side with 2-3 games to go just to squeeze widdop in for a couple of games and it’ll all blow apart again you can see this shit comic a mile off

There is a big difference. Look at the winning % of games over the last several years when Jack has been out. He was, and I think will be again, our most valuable player. The form of Hunt and the team over the next 2 months will make it so that even @TruSaint won't be able to deny Widdop was putrid for the team. If only he stayed healthy for another 2 weeks, McGregor may have been history by now. As is, this team is on the up and up and I think they will make it so that even McGregor looks like a half decent coach.

Having said that, Lawrie has been great. Not the impact Jack has but his workrate and stamina make it possible to carry a backup backline player on the bench.

 

[SaintPauli]

So for high profile / influential / public figures we speed up the justice system, but for average Joe, whom may depend on legal aid to mount a defence, we let the process run ?

Jack is an elite footy player, and through his hard work is in a position to engage the best counsel he can.

Such criminal charges take time to reach conclusion. Why should a footy player, or public figure have the justice system given up to " 3 months ", or any arbitrary time frame, when the rest of society cant?

Ofcourse we want the system quicker for us ALL but seemingly as this is a very public scenario with public debates it best dealt quickly. We can only say Jack is innocent unless proven guilty and if this process drags on for 2 years as likely it will then JACK will be the biggest loser
particularly if he comes up innocent

 

[TruSaint]

There is a big difference. Look at the winning % of games over the last several years when Jack has been out. He was, and I think will be again, our most valuable player. The form of Hunt and the team over the next 2 months will make it so that even @TruSaint won't be able to deny Widdop was putrid for the team. If only he stayed healthy for another 2 weeks, McGregor may have been history by now. As is, this team is on the up and up and I think they will make it so that even McGregor looks like a half decent coach.

Having said that, Lawrie has been great. Not the impact Jack has but his workrate and stamina make it possible to carry a backup backline player on the bench.

welcome back DragonJ

 

[Willow]

I don't think you can conflate the two decisions.

The bail decision considers whether he is a flight risk. It does not mean the court thinks he should play football.

These are the words of Magistrate Clisdell:
“He has a substantial contract to play professional rugby league, and it requires him to travel interstate.”

That was on February 2nd, and well reported.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=“He+has+a+substantial+contract+to+play+professional+rugby+league,+and+it+requires+him+to+travel+interstate.”

The 'flight risk' condition was deleted from the bail conditions so JdB didn't have to report to police twice a week. The magistrate agreed with JdB's defence that this restricted him from doing his job.

When debating the 'flight risk', even the police prosecutor Sgt Thackray said, "I’m not saying its likely, I’m saying it’s a risk."

 

[Willow]

I have always been in favour of standing him down. If it was just for 6 months or even a year I think that's appropriate.

I'm curious about this line of argument. I think someone else suggested three months.

To clarify, are you saying the NRL / ARLC should have suspended JdB for a set period (say, 6 months) and then allow him to play after that? A compromise?

 

[Willow]

So if your kids were going to the local church or community group and the person in charge had a sexual assault charge levelled against him / her but they pleaded "not guilty" would you be happy to keep your kids attending and be under his / her guidance or would you expect the person to be stood down?
Now of course people will jump on this post saying "well its not the same because its not as if Jack is going to assault somebody on the footy field" and "the others shouldn't be left in charge because they might get the opportunity to reoffend if they are guilty" etc etc.
Well under the proposition some people are putting forward they are all innocent until proven guilty and until such guilt is established the status quo should remain regardless of the number of allegations or person / persons involved or the age of any potential victims or the job that the alleged perpetrator holds.
The simple thing is there is 1 incident and that 1 incident deserves the same equality under the law as any other similar incident or multiple incidents.

OT, with respect, it looks like you quoted Dragoness's post but didn't read it.

So are people happy for people facing charges re children to be left in charge and if your answer is NO then the argument re innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold true.

It's definitely not that simple. One of the jobs of the courts is to put things into context. What you are saying does the opposite to this.

In the case of people working with children, it's a no brainer. It's unfortunate that the church doesn't adhere to that principle.

In the entirely different circumstances of a sportsperson, and where objective evidence is provided that shows a crime has been committed, then of course that person should be stood down.

With Ben Barba for example, the Cowboys saw the footage and then showed him the door.

Even the RLPA, the player's union, have agreed with this.

“Unless the game can rely on objective evidence in taking action, we believe that the criminal process needs to be respected."
https://www.rlpa.com.au/statement-player-sanctions/

This is a pragmatic approach, and one that League used to adhere to.

If an internal investigation provides no objective evidence, and the player's version satisfies the Club, then it needs to be left to the legal process to decide.

I know it's highly unlikely that you'll concede this point, but feel free to surprise me.

 

[st penguin]

If he was your national sales manager would you have him out negotiating deals at the top level?
If he was the chairman of a public listed company would you want him chairing an AGM?
The above are both high profile positions as is JDB's with the club and as part of the NRL.
Re there being some defining point in career status as to whether he should be stood down how does one draw the line?
IMO any employee of mine would be stood down with pay until the matter was finalised.
The argument that his career is only until the end of his playing days is not correct and he has plenty of opportunity to establish himself with a good career as would be the case if his career ended prematurely for a myriad of other reasons.

I'm curious about this line of argument. I think someone else suggested three months.

To clarify, are you saying the NRL / ARLC should have suspended JdB for a set period (say, 6 months) and then allow him to play after that? A compromise?

yeah good point - I should elaborate.

First of all, we shouldn’t be punishing jdb without any evidence of what happened. That’s why he hasn’t been suspended, he has been stood down. Big difference.

When we stand him down, it is only because putting him on the field while charged with rape is detrimental to the nrl (whether people agree with that is a different argument). It isn’t a punishment.

So we can’t stand him down for an arbitrary amount of time (say 3 or 6 months). Because if it was bad for the game before, it is still bad for the game now. A compromise doesn’t make sense.

Now, what usually happens is that an employee is stood down while the employer conducts an investigation. That may take 3 months or so.

In this case however we have to wait for the courts, which are diabolically slow (it’s now 5 months since the alleged offence and it has only just been mentioned yesterday!). In all likelihood, jdb will miss the 2 most important years of his playing career.

Which brings me back to my point. If the trial was concluded within 6 to 12 months of the offence. Then jdb would miss about a season, maybe less. Personally, I am comfortable with this even if he is found not guilty. He made some pretty stupid decisions that got him in this mess.

However, as it stands he will probably miss two seasons.

In terms of procedural fairness, is that reasonable? We obviously all have different opinions and that is good.

Towards old timers post, it really depends on the persons job. If they are CEO, I think they should stand down the whole two years. If it is a teacher working with kids, they obviously have to stand down. If it is a mechanic and other employees are comfortable, why shouldn’t he be allowed to work?

So why can’t the NRL put JDB on the field? its bad for PR? Some sponsors might be temporarily put off? Is that enough to deprive him of his career? Old Timer has said yes. I previously said yes, but I’m starting to think no. It’s a tough one and look forward to seeing the courts decision.

Here is an interesting article, that looks into the issues http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/7...+outside+of+work+Can+an+employee+be+suspended

In particular look at the findings for Downe v Sydney West Area Health Service

 

[Old Timer]

That comparison is way off, funny thing is there are probably more catholic priests charged for pedophilia than there are NRL players for rape. This girl was out clubbing was she not. She is not a child, there will always be shady characters out there, girls have to be smarter in some of their decisions, I’m not saying that if jack did rape her it’s her fault, I’m saying had she made the right decision she wouldn’t of been there it wouldn’t of happened to her, he had a mate there, where were her friends, was she clubbing alone? Again we don’t know what happened, we are all making assumptions on rumours. If you recall the Skaf brothers case, different scenario, she knew him trusted & probably liked him, that situation is hard for a young girl. JDB I believe was a stranger to her..

What the girl was doing at the time has no relevance and her age has no bearing on the matter either.
Now you say that if aggravated sexual assault did occur and she had made the right decisions it wouldn't of occurred so somehow it is her fault for making bad decisions?
If guilty JDB will be going to jail for a very long time and is that also as a result of the girls bad decision?
FMD some people just don't seem to be able to line up the dots and instantly gravitate to her decision making process being poor without being aware of any of the finite details.

 

[Old Timer]

OT, with respect, it looks like you quoted Dragoness's post but didn't read it.
It's definitely not that simple. One of the jobs of the courts is to put things into context. What you are saying does the opposite to this.

In the case of people working with children, it's a no brainer. It's unfortunate that the church doesn't adhere to that principle.

In the entirely different circumstances of a sportsperson, and where objective evidence is provided that shows a crime has been committed, then of course that person should be stood down.

With Ben Barba for example, the Cowboys saw the footage and then showed him the door.

Even the RLPA, the player's union, have agreed with this.

“Unless the game can rely on objective evidence in taking action, we believe that the criminal process needs to be respected."
https://www.rlpa.com.au/statement-player-sanctions/

This a pragmatic approach, and one that League used to adhere to.

If an internal investigation provides no objective evidence, and the player's version satisfies the Club, then it needs to be left to the legal process to decide.

I know it's highly unlikely that you'll concede this point, but feel free to surprise me.

Willow,
I am merely offering counter argument about "the presumption of innocence argument" people are offering up as to why JDB should be allowed to continue playing footy.
If people really believe that people are innocent until proven guilty and that JDB should therefore be able to keep plying his trade as a footballer then it is fair to ask the question, should that presumption of innocence be afforded to all defendants pleading not guilty and if not why not?
Just because JDB is a footy player?

 

[The Damo]

I might get crucified here myself.. I am a female & I believe he is innocent until proven guilty, I don’t think we have the right to assume that he is guilty, at least no more than assuming the woman involved made up the accusation. I have not met 1 woman in my 47 years that has been assaulted or raped, I have 2 adult daughters who know that some situations can be avoided, I drilled this into their heads. Never get a cab on your own, don’t leave with strangers you just met, I was always available to get them if stuck.
The thing is Damo we don’t know what happened, you believing him to be guilty is no different to someone believing she made it up. Just my opinion, sorry if I offended anyone

Not offended, I just disagree. To clarify, again, I don’t believe he’s guilty. I don’t know. I do know it’s a real possibility he will be convicted, and I think that possibility means suspending him from first grade is justified. It wouldn’t justify sacking him, or not paying him or anything else really.
I’d also add that I know multiple people, personally and professionally, men and women, who’ve been sexually assaulted, and in all but one case the perpetrator was known to the victim. The advice you give your daughters is sensible and admirable, but it wouldn’t have helped any of the the people in the cases I know.
Again, not offended, just disagree.
Cheers

 

[The Damo]

I think you are right. That was Jacks feelings as well in regard to Beattie. probably Greenberg as well though not sure. He seems to be more cautious in his public statements. he is very ambitious and mindful of the prevailing political winds. I could be wrong but I think those that are calling for the suspension to be upheld are just bitter about something but lack the courage to come out and say what they really think.

You could indeed be wrong, making assumptions without evidence or data will do that. Given you’ve said explicitly that you do that, it’s pretty safe to assume you’ll usually be wrong.

 

[The Damo]

yeah good point - I should elaborate.

First of all, we shouldn’t be punishing jdb without any evidence of what happened. That’s why he hasn’t been suspended, he has been stood down. Big difference.

When we stand him down, it is only because putting him on the field while charged with rape is detrimental to the nrl (whether people agree with that is a different argument). It isn’t a punishment.

So we can’t stand him down for an arbitrary amount of time (say 3 or 6 months). Because if it was bad for the game before, it is still bad for the game now. A compromise doesn’t make sense.

Now, what usually happens is that an employee is stood down while the employer conducts an investigation. That may take 3 months or so.

In this case however we have to wait for the courts, which are diabolically slow (it’s now 5 months since the alleged offence and it has only just been mentioned yesterday!). In all likelihood, jdb will miss the 2 most important years of his playing career.

Which brings me back to my point. If the trial was concluded within 6 to 12 months of the offence. Then jdb would miss about a season, maybe less. Personally, I am comfortable with this even if he is found not guilty. He made some pretty stupid decisions that got him in this mess.

However, as it stands he will probably miss two seasons.

In terms of procedural fairness, is that reasonable? We obviously all have different opinions and that is good.

Towards old timers post, it really depends on the persons job. If they are CEO, I think they should stand down the whole two years. If it is a teacher working with kids, they obviously have to stand down. If it is a mechanic and other employees are comfortable, why shouldn’t he be allowed to work?

So why can’t the NRL put JDB on the field? its bad for PR? Some sponsors might be temporarily put off? Is that enough to deprive him of his career? Old Timer has said yes. I previously said yes, but I’m starting to think no. It’s a tough one and look forward to seeing the courts decision.

Here is an interesting article, that looks into the issues http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/7...+outside+of+work+Can+an+employee+be+suspended

In particular look at the findings for Downe v Sydney West Area Health Service

I think you articulated the issue here really well.
I totally agree it’s not simple, and that IF the case takes two years and IF Jack is found not guilty then it will have been a very high price for him to pay. However he will still have been paid a very high wage in that time, and he’ll have opportunities and contacts way in advance of the vast majority of the population.
The other side of the coin is - IF he’s found guilty, then the NRL and the club will have up to two years of footage of them promoting and celebrating a now convicted gang rapist.
To my mind the potential negatives of the second scenario outweigh the potential negatives of the first scenario. Others will weigh that differently.

 

[Dragoness]

Not offended, I just disagree. To clarify, again, I don’t believe he’s guilty. I don’t know. I do know it’s a real possibility he will be convicted, and I think that possibility means suspending him from first grade is justified. It wouldn’t justify sacking him, or not paying him or anything else really.
I’d also add that I know multiple people, personally and professionally, men and women, who’ve been sexually assaulted, and in all but one case the perpetrator was known to the victim. The advice you give your daughters is sensible and admirable, but it wouldn’t have helped any of the the people in the cases I know.
Again, not offended, just disagree.
Cheers

Fair enough, I have no doubt that the majority of cases are people known to them, I agree this makes it very difficult for the victim. Trust me I watch a lot of true crime shows, murders same thing usually people known to them ie the Skaf case (gang rape). I guess the fact that you know such people would change your view and that’s understandable.

 

[Willow]

Willow,
I am merely offering counter argument about "the presumption of innocence argument" people are offering up as to why JDB should be allowed to continue playing footy.
If people really believe that people are innocent until proven guilty and that JDB should therefore be able to keep plying his trade as a footballer then it is fair to ask the question, should that presumption of innocence be afforded to all defendants pleading not guilty and if not why not?
Just because JDB is a footy player?

It's because these matters should be kept in context and addressed on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Glenn012]

This from Old Timer a few years ago:

I have been a harsh critic of De Belin as I firmly believed that early on he had potential but IMO he had surely lost his way with all the hype and ball playing, Merrin replacement crap associated with him.
As I said after the CS I could see real signs of improvement and that continued into yesterdays game and all power to him.
If he continues on in this vein, he will have a very good season indeed, but as was the case so often with Dave Taylor a commanding presence on the field can be heavily / easily distracted with other peoples tasks like ball playing. Jack I don't believe that is your job.
Keep winding up as you run onto the ball Jack and keep your legs pumping and the defence will start to back peddle trying to contain you.
Then from time to time when the opportunity for offloads presents itself you need to be judicious in your play and others around you will also benefit from your good work.
Many a time big Artie and Rocket Rod could have taken the risk of too many offloads but they didn't overplay their ability and that is what made them great.

There is much more where that came from. Anything he says in regard to Jack should be disregarded.

 

[Mr Angry]

In essence, there is an argument that once an allegation is made, action needs to happen, for whatever reason.

Mud does stick.

I am just sad now. Not angry, just sad.

So many judges. Yet not enough, takes years.

 

[getsmarty]

Jack de Belin could be free to play on Anzac Day if successful in the federal court
Jack de Belin could learn the outcome of his case against the ARLC next week, meaning he could be free to play for the Dragons in their Anzac Day blockbuster against the Roosters.

By Steve Zemek
AAPApril 18, 20198:30am

Jack De Belin could be free to play on Anzac Day if successful in the Federal Court. Pic Mark EvansSource:News Corp Australia

Jack de Belin could learn the outcome of his case against the NRL and ARL Commission as early as next Tuesday, meaning he could be free to play for St George Illawarra in their Anzac Day blockbuster against the Sydney Roosters.

de Belin’s case will wind up in Federal Court on Thursday with Melbourne Storm chairman Bart Campbell to take the witness stand and closing remarks.

The Dragons star forward is suing the game after he was stood down under the game’s controversial “no fault” policy.

For the past three days, de Belin’s lawyers have argued NRL CEO Todd Greenberg and ARL Commission chairman Peter Beattie had no justification for the policy, which was described by barrister Martin Einfeld as “draconian”.

Should de Belin be successful, the Dragons would be able to make an application to the NRL to allow him to be included in their team to take on the Roosters in the traditional Anzac Day clash on Thursday, which is expected to attract a bumper crowd to the SCG.

de Belin was stood down after he was charged with the aggravated sexual assault of a 19-year-old woman.

He has pleaded not guilty.

His case, and that of co-accused Callan Sinclair, were mentioned in Wollongong Local Court on Wednesday and were adjourned to May 29.

de Belin’s legal team have argued that the NRL had no evidence of de Belin’s actions or purported misconduct before standing him down.

Einfeld has also made the case that there are a plethora of reasons why people might walk away from the game including refereeing controversies, concerns about concussion and alcohol and gambling advertising.

In his testimony on Wednesday, Greenberg said that he was concerned about the impact player behaviour was having on women and that they would walk away from the game.

He told the court some of his daughter’s friends had told him they were refusing to play casual touch rugby league because of the game’s so-called “summer from hell”.


https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/d...t/news-story/9f2339654fc1741afd8ef6d82befc0fb

 

[Glenn012]

Now getting back to De Belin I still think he has a long, long way to go before he would be a candidate for SOO however in his opinion he is ready for it, made for it etc and I don't agree with him.

You asked for it. Much more where that came from. Want more or will you have the courage to admit you have an agenda in regard to Jack?

 

[WoyD4LWoy]

Jack de Belin tipped to win legal battle against NRL's no fault stand down policy
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...court-dylan-walker/142l48kjzmar81mu7pr5m55fnx